Juvenile Ethical Dilemmas

What approaches should be utilized to understand juvenile justice and the ethical dilemmas that arise within the condition? Juvenile delinquency in the United States, because of its prominence on rehabilitation and the best interest of children, has become an increasingly compound subject (Ramirez, 2008). Some causes of delinquency include poverty, drugs, gangs, abuse and neglect, and truancy (Ramirez, 2008). In addition, violent juvenile crimes led to an increase in the waiver of many young offenders to the adult criminal justice system, therefore many delinquents are tried as adults which brings into the dilemma of whether this deed is fitting and effective.
Changes in the national formation of children during the nineteenth century led Progressive
Supreme Court between juvenile and adult justice have been working to the disadvantage of the juvenile convicted. Although in the past and current special provisions for dealing with delinquents have existed, juvenile courts has traditionally treated youth offenders the same way orphans and neglected children are treated (Kirk, 1976). Youth offenders in most occurrences receive the worst of both worlds; imprisoned with adult criminals while being denied the safeguard as a child. Juvenile courts aim to help the child rather than punishing but in some instances, the child must be tried as an adult. In Kurilla’s case, he was initially tried as an adult for committing homicide. At age 10, Kurilla was charged as an adult in October as required by state law for homicide cases and stayed in Wayne County Prison. Three months later, Kurilla took a stand and his attorney and family argued to have him treated as a juvenile. A judge then ruled to move the case to juvenile court, so Tristin will not be in prison but he will be under supervision, until 21 (Daley,
Under these factors, juvenile courts would decide whether to allow judicial discretion. Many states do not allow transfers to adult court depending on a certain age and if the juvenile is amenable to treatment (Perry, 2009). Other states would not require judicial finding before the offender is tried as an adult if the offender is an older adolescent (15 or 16 years old) and the crime is serious and violent, rape or murder. The ability of juveniles to trial as adults, however, contains two interrelated purposes, both of which differ from other criminal concerns: (1) amenability of juveniles to respond positively to treatment, and (2) their future dangerousness, particularly with regard to how dangerousness is supposedly reflected in "juvenile psychopathy scores” (Perry,